HC Deb 28 June 1897 vol 50 cc671-2

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR in the Chair.]

Clause 1,—

POWER TO MAKE ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF POLICE.

(1.) Where any property has come into the possession of the police in connection with any criminal charge or under Section sixty-six of the Metropolitan Police Act.1839, Section forty-eight of the Act of the Session of the second and third years of Her present Majesty, chapter ninety-four (local), for regulating the Police in the City of London, or Section one hundred and three of the Larceny Act, 1861, or Section thirty-four of the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872, a metropolitan police magistrate sitting at Bow Street within the metropolitan police district and a court of summary jurisdiction elsewhere may, on application either by an officer of police or by a claimant of the property, make an order for the delivery of the property to the person appearing to the magistrate or court to be the owner thereof, or, if the owner cannot be ascertained, make such order with respect to the property as to the magistrate or court may seem meet.

(2.) An order under this section shall not affect the right of any person to take within six months from the date of the order legal proceedings against any person in possession of property delivered by virtue of the order for the recovery of the property, but on the expiration of those six months the right shall cease.

MR. PICKERSGILL moved to omit from Sub-section 1, the words "sitting at Bow Street." He said that the object of the Bill was to give power to decide the right of possession to property in the hands of the police, and against that he had nothing to say. There was, however, to be only

one Court within the Metropolitan Police area having jurisdiction under the Bill. That would be inconvenient and wrong from the point of view of policy. It would be obviously inconvenient for a complainant living, say, 20 miles from Charing Cross, to come to Bow Street to establish his right to the possession of property. From the point of view of policy, if they gave jurisdiction to one magistrate only the inevitable effect would be that that magistrate would have to take an official or a stereotyped view of the matter. If his Amendment were adopted any magistrate sitting in the Metropolis, would have jurisdiction under the Bill.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpool

said he had no doubt the words "sitting at Bow Street" were put in with some object, but as there appeared to be reason in the Amendment he would accept it subject to revision on Report.

Amendment agreed to; Bill reported; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.